There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” Moore said. “We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.”

“It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age,” he added. “It is ‘extremely likely’ that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”

Indeed, cold weather is more likely to cause death than warm weather. RealClearScience reported that from “1999 to 2010, a total of 4,563 individuals died from heat, but 7,778 individuals died from the cold.” Only in 2006 did heat-related deaths outnumber cold deaths.

In Britain, 24,000 people are projected to die this winter because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Roughly 4.5 million British families are facing “fuel poverty.”

“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” Moore said.

“When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.”

Moore, a Canadian, helped found the environmental activist group Greenpeace in the 1970s. He left the group after they began to take on more radical positions. He has since been a critic of radical environmentalism and heads up the group Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, Canada.

Moore’s comments come after President Obama declared global warming a “fact” in the State of the Union. His administration has attempted to argue that the recent U.S. cold snap was influenced by a warmer planet.

Climate scientists, however, have been struggling to explain why global surface temperatures have not risen in the last 17 years and why atmospheric temperatures have been flat for the last decade.

“From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of [0.5 degrees Celsius] over that 30-year period,” Moore said. “Then there was a 30-year ‘pause’ until 1970. This was followed by an increase of [0.57 degrees Celsius] during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature.”

“This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time,” the former environmental activist added. “The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000.”

“Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to ‘human influence.’” Moore continued. “They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase ‘since the mid-20th century.’ Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by ‘human influence,’ when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?”

It sounds like you're ready to rush into some pretty expensive programs.

There are two categories of "programs" as you like to call them. The first category is prevention and include putting less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through renewable energy forms or capturing the carbon from emissions of traditional fuels.

The second category is adaptation. These are more reactionary and not a matter of choice. These "programs" have already begun. Here are some examples*:

Resilient infrastructure: Dutch seawalls and similar ones being considered for NYC; improvement in levee systems of New Orleans

Relocation: there are 100,000 less people living in New Orleans than there were before Katrina. See migration from Bangledesh

Food: corn and soybean production were down 25% and 14% in 2012 due to the drought.

*not to say that Katrina, Sandy, or the 2012 drought were specifically caused by anthropogenic climate change, but these types of events are predicted to be more frequent. We will never be able to pin a particular weather event on anthropogenic climate change, but the prediction is that extreme events will become more frequent. Sandy was definitely worse than it would have been had past sea level rises not occurred.

There are two categories of "programs" as you like to call them. The first category is prevention and include putting less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through renewable energy forms or capturing the carbon from emissions of traditional fuels.

The second category is adaptation. These are more reactionary and not a matter of choice. These "programs" have already begun. Here are some examples*:

Resilient infrastructure: Dutch seawalls and similar ones being considered for NYC; improvement in levee systems of New Orleans

Relocation: there are 100,000 less people living in New Orleans than there were before Katrina. See migration from Bangledesh

Food: corn and soybean production were down 25% and 14% in 2012 due to the drought.

*not to say that Katrina, Sandy, or the 2012 drought were specifically caused by anthropogenic climate change, but these types of events are predicted to be more frequent. We will never be able to pin a particular weather event on anthropogenic climate change, but the prediction is that extreme events will become more frequent. Sandy was definitely worse than it would have been had past sea level rises not occurred.

It's one thing to respond to clear and present emergencies (relocating 100,000 people in the wake of Katrina), but it's completely different to act on a massive scale in response to a prospective danger (relocating "billions"). Now I realize that you weren't necessarily proposing that the US foot the bill for an immediate relocation of over 1/6th of the global population, but it's not clear how far you're willing to go. To be fair, I'm not sure I could say where I'd want to stop.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

It's one thing to respond to clear and present emergencies (relocating 100,000 people in the wake of Katrina), but it's completely different to act on a massive scale in response to a prospective danger (relocating "billions"). Now I realize that you weren't necessarily proposing that the US foot the bill for an immediate relocation of over 1/6th of the global population, but it's not clear how far you're willing to go. To be fair, I'm not sure I could say where I'd want to stop.

The relocation of a billion people would occur over perhaps 100 years. And it would look exactly as it has in New Orleans and Bangladesh. People fleeing flooded areas and not returning. No one is advocating a program where people are moved out of vulnerable lands before disaster strikes. It is still a huge problem, with trillions of dollars of economic impact. As an alternative to abandoning coastal cities, we can build resilient infrastructure before too many people flee these areas to make the worth saving. This too will cost trillions.

The relocation of a billion people would occur over perhaps 100 years. And it would look exactly as it has in New Orleans and Bangladesh. People fleeing flooded areas and not returning. No one is advocating a program where people are moved out of vulnerable lands before disaster strikes. It is still a huge problem, with trillions of dollars of economic impact. As an alternative to abandoning coastal cities, we can build resilient infrastructure before too many people flee these areas to make the worth saving. This too will cost trillions.

OK, that sounds much better that what I initially thought I was reading. I'm not sure how widespread your reasonableness is among climate change zealots though.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

You keep insisting that climate change is a US government idea when it's not. Here's an article about a study by Swiss, Australian, and Canadian scientific groups. Temp data is even from the WMO, and not the US government. No US government influence.

All governments want to control and this is what it's all about. Controlling and taxing the working population to give free crap to the non-working population and then bussing the non-workers to the polls on election day while workers are too busy working. This has proven to be the winning strategy for the career politicians.
The lack of scientific data is laughable and to jump to conclusions based on such is moronic. This planet is 4.5 billion years old and the climate has changed constantly during that time, without man and with. I know Liberals have a hard time understanding what a billion or trillion is, so I'll break it down to millions. It's 4,500 million. To conclude that 120 years of the industrial revolution in the USA, Europe, and Asia has contributed in the least to earth cycles in the thousands and tens of thousands of years is asinine. If one would just drive out of the city, they would see that most of the land mass in the world is undeveloped and 2/3rds is water.
It'll continue to change with petroleum or without. No matter what the lab coats do, they can't control the fireball in the sky that influences climate the most.
California is in a serious drought condition. Drought has happened here many times before. What makes this drought so serious isn't the recent history record lack of rainfall, it's the fact that environmentalist sued to have the reservoirs emptied. California had 3-5 years of reserve water stored up for such droughts. Seems that the wacko bird enviros thought that the rivers were too low and it was displacing wildlife. Rivers were flooded with water and now that the reservoirs are empty, Rivers are so low that new gold is being found in the dry Rivers. Worst of all, the farmers were told that they get zero water this year to grow the food that the vegans love so much.
Wacko birds need to just stop with the BS.

__________________

"Not reading the books doesn't mean I can't discuss them" - KC Native 3/14/14
”Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”- Hillary Clinton 2000

Must be like a prepper. Prepare. As we now have been told it is Climate Change, we have to do much more. It could change colder. And again change hotter. Summer clothes, winter clothes? Layers?

In the old days of Global Warming, we had much better focus. But now the possibilities are endless.

A prime example of the complexity of this is a cow. Yes, a cow.

Id postulate most global climate change types are rather firmly in the camp that grass fed cows are a better thing than a grain fed cow. But they have to balance that with the fact that a cow eating grass produces far more methane (Farting as an example) than a grain fed cow.

So what to do?

Then we need to evaluate the impact on the climate change from the growing grass vs the crops used as feed.

Carbon sequestration? Better a pasture or better a wood? or better a corn field?

So. Study we must. And spending to prep is critical.

"Climate change is a much more difficult problem to solve (since we can't seem to define it or its cause), and the consequences for ignoring it are potentially worse(so being busy doing stuff is good even if the rest of the globe does nothing)."

Metelrologist can't even predict a weeks weather worth a damn, but the lab coats can determine the entire globes' climate future.
Haha

__________________

"Not reading the books doesn't mean I can't discuss them" - KC Native 3/14/14
”Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”- Hillary Clinton 2000

He's no longer with GReenpeace, and while a scientist, he has a degree in ecology, not anything directly related to climate change.

His opinion is not worthless, but neither he nor any other single person really has THE answer to the issue. Hundreds if not thousands of scientists are studying this issue around the world. The opinions of each of them matter more than this fellow.